> > Are there any objections to changing struct emul's e_name field from
> > 
> > 	char e_name[8];
> > to
> > 	const char *e_name;
> > 
> > Cheers, Steve
>
>Doing that would cause you to have to do two kvm reads (one to get emul,
>one to get emul->e_name), but even so, I think it's the right thing to do.

wouldn't it simply be more correct to print only up to 8 bytes if
that's how long the field is?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."